Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: BC569926, Date: 2023-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC569926    Hearing Date: August 9, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff Pedro Fernandez

RESPONDING PARTY:       Unopposed

Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this motion.  No opposition papers were filed.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Pedro Fernandez (“Plaintiff”) filed this discrimination and wrongful termination action on January 23, 2015, against defendant Peterberg Construction, Inc.  On February 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed two Amendments to Complaint, which (1) substituted Adam Daniel Goldberg as the true name for fictitious Doe 1 in the Complaint, and (2) substituted Brian David Peters as the true name for fictitious Doe 2 in the Complaint.

On November 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement of Entire Case, informing the court that the parties agreed to settle this action.  By minute order dated November 14, 2016, the court approved the “[c]onditional settlement pursuant to section 664.6” and ordered that (1) this case was “deemed dismissed on [the] terms and conditions” in the parties’ conditional settlement, and (2) the court would retain jurisdiction “for any and all enforcement purposes.” 

Plaintiff now moves the court, pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement, for an order entering judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against defendants Peterberg Construction, Inc., Adam Goldberg, and Brian Peters (collectively, “Defendants”) in the total amount of $12,660, consisting of the principal amount of $10,000, and attorney’s fees and costs in the total amount of $2,660.

The court sets aside the court-ordered dismissal and grants Plaintiff’s motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides:¿ “If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.¿ If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.”¿ This statute “provides a summary procedure to enforce a settlement agreement by entering judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.”¿ (Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182.)¿ “If the court determines that the parties entered into an enforceable settlement, it should grant the motion and enter a formal judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.”¿ (Ibid.)¿¿ 

Plaintiff submits the “Confidential Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release” (the “Agreement”), which was entered into by and between Plaintiff, on the one hand, and Defendants, on the other hand, on November 11, 2016.  (Geshgian Decl., Ex. 1, Agreement.)  The Agreement (1) provides that, in order to settle this action, Defendants agreed to pay to Plaintiff $70,000 in accordance with the payment schedule set forth in the Agreement; (2) provides that it “may be enforced in any appropriate or applicable manner, including by Motion to Enforce Settlement in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §664.6” and that the court shall retain jurisdiction over the action in order to enforce the Agreement; and (3) was signed by Plaintiff and Defendants. (Geshgian Decl., Ex. 1, Agreement, §§ 1, 9 [emphasis in original]; Geshgian Decl., Ex. 1, Agreement, p. 7 [signature pages].)  The Agreement further states that, if Defendants fail to cure their default, Plaintiff will be entitled to enter judgment in the stipulated amount of $70,000, less any payments made.  (Id., § 4.)  The parties also agreed that “[t]he prevailing party in any lawsuit or other alternative dispute resolution procedure used to enforce this Agreement shall be entitled to recover from the non-prevailing party all reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in connection with such lawsuit.”  (Id., § 8.)

Plaintiff has also submitted the declaration of his counsel, in which counsel states that (1) Defendants paid the first six installments of the settlement sum but failed to pay the last two installments in the total amount of $10,000, and (2) Defendants did not cure their default after Plaintiff sent them notices of default.  (Geshgian Decl., ¶¶ 4-5; Geshgian Decl., Ex. 3 [notices of default sent (1) by email on January 22, 2019 and June 5, 2020, and (2) by facsimile and first-class mail on January 22, 2019].)

Thus, the court finds that Plaintiff has presented evidence establishing that the parties stipulated, in a writing signed by both Plaintiff and Defendants outside of the presence of the court, for the settlement of this action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6; Geshgian Decl., Ex. 1, Agreement.)  Defendants have not filed opposition papers establishing that the Agreement is not enforceable or valid, or that Defendants have cured their default.

Upon consideration of the evidence submitted by Plaintiff, the court finds that the parties entered into an enforceable settlement agreement and that Defendants have defaulted under the terms of the agreement.  The court therefore sets aside the dismissal of this case and grants Plaintiff’s request to enter a judgment in his favor pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, less the amounts already paid by Defendants.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6; Hines, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 1182.)  The court also grants Plaintiff’s request for an award of attorney’s fees and costs in the total amount of $2,660 ((4 hours x $650 hourly rate) + $60 filing fee) pursuant to the agreement.  (Geshgian Decl., ¶ 10.)

ORDER

The court grants plaintiff Pedro Fernandez’s motion to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement and request for attorney’s fees.

The court orders that the November 14, 2016 order dismissing this action is vacated.

The court orders that judgment shall be entered in favor of plaintiff Pedro Fernandez and against defendants Peterberg Construction, Inc., Brian Peters, and Adam Goldberg in the total amount of $12,660, consisting of $10,000 in damages ($70,000 settlement amount less $60,000 paid), $2,600 in attorney’s fees, and $60 in costs.  

The court orders plaintiff Pedro Fernandez to prepare, lodge, and serve a proposed judgment on Judicial Council Form JUD-100 within 10 days of the date of this order.

The court orders plaintiff Pedro Fernandez to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  August 9, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court